By Eyagu Boniface
Date: 25th November
The Electoral Commission (EC) has dismissed the nomination of National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate Mr. Charles Ongelech, effectively removing him from the 2026 parliamentary race for Kachumbala County in Bukedea District. The decision, issued under MIN.COMP/038/2025, clears the path for incumbent Hon. Patrick Isiagi (NRM) to return to Parliament unopposed.
The ruling follows a petition lodged by Mr. Atum George William, who accused the opposition candidate of submitting fraudulent supporter signatures during nomination. The case, which proceeded uncontested due to the respondent’s absence, has triggered renewed debate about the integrity of nomination processes and the rising number of candidates being disqualified by the Commission.
Petition: Six Supporters Deny Signing Nomination Forms
According to the EC ruling signed by Chairperson Justice Simon Byabakama Mugenyi, the petition alleged that six out of the ten required supporters listed on Ongelech's nomination forms did not endorse him.
The individuals—
• Atukei Anna Christine
• Aolio Paul
• Anyapa Robert
• Asukan John Bosco
• Malinga Brian
• Isimai Phillips
—each filed sworn affidavits denying that they signed or consented to endorse the NUP candidate.
They prayed that the Commission remove their names from the documents, arguing that their fraudulent inclusion invalidated the entire nomination.
Under Section 28(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, every parliamentary aspirant must present at least ten registered voters as supporters. With six signatures invalidated, Ongelech was left with only four valid endorsements—less than half of what the law requires.
Two Hearing Sessions Missed
The matter was first scheduled for hearing on November 6, 2025, where the petitioner appeared with legal counsel Emmanuel Wamimbi. Ongelech did not attend despite formal notification.
His lawyer, Counsel Jonathan Eluto of M/s Pace Advocates, appeared briefly and asked for an adjournment to allow the candidate to appear in person.
The Commission granted the request and fixed November 7, 2025 for the final hearing.
However, on the appointed date, neither the candidate nor his lawyer appeared. This absence allowed the petitioner to proceed unchallenged. Witnesses were ready for cross-examination, but with no defence team present, their testimonies went uncontested.
After reviewing the affidavit evidence and the procedural history, the Commission observed that:
- All six witnesses categorically denied endorsing the candidate
- Their evidence was not rebutted
- The respondent abandoned the hearing despite two opportunities to appear
- The nomination did not meet the mandatory requirement of ten supporters
With these findings, the EC concluded that Mr. Ongelech was irregularly nominated.
Electoral Commission’s Final Decision
In its decision, the Commission resolved:
“The Commission, under MIN.COMP/038/2025, resolves to denominate the said candidate, he having been irregularly nominated.”
The ruling was communicated to the Returning Officer for Bukedea District, confirming that Mr. Ongelech is no longer eligible to contest in the 2026 parliamentary elections.
With the only challenger eliminated, incumbent Hon. Isiagi now becomes the unopposed candidate for Kachumbala County.
Ongelech’s Claims of Intimidation and Pressure
The ruling comes shortly after a widely circulated video in which Mr. Ongelech claimed that he was being pressured to withdraw from the race. He alleged:
- Threats to his family members
- Bribery of some nominators to renounce their signatures
- Promises of solar panels and other incentives used to deceive locals
- Attempts to pressure his father to denounce his candidature
He stated in the video:
“I am not withdrawing. The people of Kachumbala asked me to stand, and I will not betray them.”
Ironically, one of the individuals he mentioned in the video—Atukei Anna Christine—submitted one of the affidavits that ultimately contributed to his dismissal.
The allegations were never formally presented before the EC, and his failure to attend hearings significantly weakened his defence.
Political Analysts Weigh In
Political analyst Andrew Otim, based in Soroti, says the case highlights both legal and strategic weaknesses:
“Once a petition is filed, failing to appear before the Commission is almost fatal. Whether you believe there is political pressure or not, the law will rely on the evidence presented. In this case, the evidence stood unchallenged.”
He added that the NUP candidate still has the option to appeal the EC decision in the High Court, though appeal windows are short and procedures strict.
Not an Isolated Incident: Nebbi Case Highlights Growing Pattern
The Kachumbala ruling adds to a growing list of candidates dismissed by the Electoral Commission over similar issues.
In a recently concluded case in Nebbi Municipality, another NUP candidate was dismissed after several supporters disowned signatures attributed to them. The decision in that case cleared the way for State Minister Dr. Ruth Goodgame Nyamutoro (NRM) to proceed with the election without facing a strong opposition challenger.
Although the facts differ, the pattern is similar:
- Petitions alleging forged signatures
- Supporters filing affidavits denying endorsements
- Opposition candidates failing to effectively defend their nominations
- Resulting rulings that leave NRM candidates advantaged
Analysts say these repeated cases signal deeper issues in nomination verification, political pressure at grassroots level, and limited legal preparedness of some opposition aspirants.
Electoral Commission Defends Its Decisions
The Electoral Commission maintains that its actions are guided solely by law. Officials point out that:
- The ten-supporter requirement is mandatory
- Affidavit evidence cannot be ignored
- Disqualification is automatic when mandatory documents are invalid
- The Commission does not initiate these petitions; they are filed by citizens
As Uganda heads toward the 2026 general elections, the EC insists it will continue to apply the law consistently across all political parties.
What Happens Next?
With no opponent in the race, Hon. Isiagi is expected to return to Parliament in 2026 without facing a ballot.
Unless Mr. Ongelech files a successful appeal, Kachumbala County joins a growing list of constituencies where candidates have secured the seat long before election day.
For many political observers, the case raises ongoing questions:
- Are forged signatures widespread because candidates rush nomination processes?
- Are nominators being influenced to later disown support?
- Is the EC’s strict enforcement strengthening democracy or limiting competition?
- And most importantly: what reforms can prevent similar disputes in future elections?
As the campaign season intensifies, the Kachumbala ruling is likely to remain one of the most discussed nomination disputes of the 2026 cycle—especially because of its ripple effects on political balance in Bukedea and its resemblance to other high-profile cases across the country.
